POLISCOPE
Back to feed
Part ofcivil procedure →
FEDERALhearing transcript

Congressional Hearing on 'SNAP' Removals in Federal Courts

Original title: EXAMINING THE USE OF ``SNAP'' REMOVALS TO CIRCUMVENT THE FORUM DEFENDANT RULE

January 1, 2021

civil procedurefederal courtslegal reformSNAP removalforum defendant rule

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

The outcome of this discussion could lead to changes in federal civil procedure rules that determine whether a lawsuit against a local company stays in a state court or is moved to a federal court, potentially affecting the speed, cost, and location of litigation for residents.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Civil litigants

The rules governing where their lawsuits are heard determine the court system, procedural requirements, and potential outcomes of their cases.

Corporate defendants

The ability to use SNAP removal affects their capacity to move litigation from state to federal court.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2021.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

This hearing examined the legal practice known as 'SNAP ,' where defendants in lawsuits use procedural tactics to move cases from state courts to federal courts before they are officially served with the lawsuit. The subcommittee discussed whether this practice undermines the ',' which is intended to keep certain local lawsuits in state courts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is SNAP removal?
It is a legal tactic where a defendant in a lawsuit removes a case to federal court immediately after it is filed, but before they have been officially served with the legal papers.
Why is this practice controversial?
Critics argue it allows defendants to bypass the ',' which is designed to keep local cases in state courts when the defendant is a resident of that state.

Key Facts

  • The hearing took place on November 14, 2019, before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
  • The subject is the 'forum defendant rule,' which generally prevents a defendant from removing a case to federal court if they are a citizen of the state where the lawsuit was filed.
  • The term 'SNAP removal' refers to defendants filing for removal to federal court after a lawsuit is filed but before they have been formally served with the complaint.
  • The hearing included testimony from four legal experts representing diverse perspectives on civil litigation.
  • The subcommittee requested and received written responses to follow-up questions from witnesses Ellen Relkin, Arthur Hellman, and James E. Pfander.
  • A letter for the record was submitted by the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel.

Why It Matters

The outcome of this discussion could lead to changes in federal civil procedure rules that determine whether a lawsuit against a local company stays in a state court or is moved to a federal court, potentially affecting the speed, cost, and location of litigation for residents.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Show 1 more sponsor

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Procedural Loophole Examination

The hearing highlights a specific tension between the literal text of federal removal statutes and the intended purpose of the forum defendant rule.

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

Connected Entities

personMartha Roby“Ranking Member of the Subcommittee”Map →
personKaspar Stoffelmayr“Witness, Partner at Barlit Beck LLP”Map →
personHenry C. Hank Johnson, Jr.“Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet”Map →
personEllen Relkin“Witness, Co-Chair of Defective Drugs and Devices Practice Group at Weitz & Luxen”Map →
personJames E. Pfander“Witness, Professor of Law at Northwestern University”Map →
personArthur D. Hellman“Witness, Professor of Law Emeritus at University of Pittsburgh”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance40
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy30
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment5
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz10
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record